1. Brilliant Warrior
A Research Paper
Presented To
Air Force 2025
by
Jay W. Kelley
Lt Gen, USAF
August 1996

2. Disclaimer
2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air
Force to examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will
require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future. Presented on 17 June
1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense school environment of
academic freedom and in the interest of advancing concepts related to national defense.
The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official
policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United
States government.
This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any
similarities to real people or events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional
and are for purposes of illustration only.
This publication has been reviewed by security and policy review authorities, is
unclassified, and is cleared for public release.

3. Contents
iii
Page
Disclaimer............................................................................................................................ ii
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
Training and Education ....................................................................................................... 1
The Quest and the Questions............................................................................................... 2
Alternate Futures ................................................................................................ 2
Unions and Intersections..................................................................................... 3
The Environment................................................................................................................. 4
The Output........................................................................................................................... 6
The Input ............................................................................................................................. 7
The Thirteenth Generation ................................................................................. 7
Forming Brilliant Warriors .................................................................................................. 9
General Characteristics of a Future PME System .............................................. 9
Specific Characteristics of a Future PME System............................................ 10
Choosing Wisely................................................................................................................ 13
Illustrations
Figure Page
1. The Brilliant Warrior Model................................................................................... 13

4. Introduction
If we should have to fight, we should be prepared to do so
from the neck up, instead of from the neck down.
1
—Jimmy Doolittle
Centuries ago Confucius observed that to lead an uninstructed people to war is to
throw them away.” Today, centuries later, there can be no doubt that professional
military education (PME) is a critical complement to professional military training. To
assert that education is more important than training, or that training is more important
than education, is to engage in an argument ultimately without much merit. Fielding an
untrained armed force would be as unconscionable or as stupid as fielding a trained one
led by uneducated or untrained leaders. While all agree on the importance of both
training and education to the armed forces of the future, there is plenty of room for
debate on how much professional military education a warrior needs, the different forms
it ought to take, and the timing and the impact of information technologies.
This article hopes to encourage, and even enliven, that debate.1 One thing is not
debatable: People are the most valuable and critical element in the armed forces. It is
people who must fight and win our nation’s wars. Technology provides the tools for
fighting, and training enables us to use those tools to their best advantage. The aim of
professional military education is to leverage the most powerful factor in the war-fighting
equation: the human mind. Our training institutions and the capabilities they provide are
superior. Training has remained relevant and has repeatedly reengineered itself to take
advantage of advances in information technology, simulation, and discoveries about how
adults learn best. Training is challenging, experiential, and, in some ways, fun. PME, on
the other hand, has not kept pace with the improvements in training, let alone the need.
Unless PME better prepares warriors for the demands of the future, even our best
training may be wasted. Understanding the changes that need to be made in the future of
PME requires first that we differentiate between professional military training and
professional military education.2
Training and Education
Military training and education do not aim at providing jobs or adventures. They
are necessary for success in warfare. Training creates competence in using the machines
or tools required for current military tasks. It is about teaching others things we already
know and about using things that operate mechanically, electrically, or more or less
predictably. Education, on the other hand, aims at acquiring the right intellectual

5. constructs and learning the appropriate principles of selection so that the needed tools are
available and the right ones can be selected and used to achieve a desired effect. It is
about trying to learn whatever it is we do not know but that we envision what we need to
know to survive and succeed. Said another way, training teaches the archer how to use
the bow and arrow. Education insures that the archer not only knows how and when to
use the bow¾and always aims the right arrow at the right bullseye¾but also immediately
sees the value of gunpowder as an improvement and complement to archery. The test of
training is demonstrated competence in environments that exist and are understood today.
The test of education is success in different environments; those perhaps not fully
understood today, and those that may exist in the future.
The Quest and the Questions
For the past several years, Air University has engaged in studies of the future.
SPACECAST 2020 was followed by the current effort, Air Force 2025, which was
directed by Gen Ronald R. Fogleman, the Air Force chief of staff. This study aims to
understand the air and space capabilities our country will need in the future, the systems
and technologies that might contribute to those capabilities, and the concepts of
operations needed to employ new capabilities best. Closely related in objectives are the
numerous studies and seminar wargames being sponsored by the Office of the Secretary
of Defense which seek to understand the revolution in military affairs (RMA). Each of
the services and the joint staff are looking into the future. The quest is to look ahead two
or three decades to understand the future “operating environments” in which our armed
forces might find themselves. The obvious initial questions that arise are “Which future?”
and “What makes you think you’ve got it right?”
2
Alternate Futures
Moving into the future, my friend Carl Builder reminds me, is like driving into the
fog.3 If one wants to see specific things in the fog, turning on the high beams only
illuminates the fog more brightly. To see the shapes in the fog requires lowering your
beams, peripheral vision, and the ability to see the relationships between the shapes, the
road ahead, and the means of illumination. It also requires making implicit assumptions
explicit and then challenging them. The first thing one “sees” using Builder’s image is
that there is more than one future visible in the fog. These “alternate futures” are each
different, internally consistent, and often equally plausible. Any one of them could
become the future. Some are benign. Others are onerous. Taken together, these
alternate futures bound the strategic planning space, help identify risks, and offer
awareness of the different challenges and opportunities that may lie ahead. Alternate
futures are descriptive, not predictive or normative. They are “planning stories” or
“scenarios.” Aware of alternatives, planners can choose to reject or ignore any or all.
The objective is to clarify the shapes in the fog to reduce surprise and, hence, risk for
decision makers. After all, the decision maker might be you.

6. But how do we know we got it “precisely right” in these planning scenarios?
Alternate futures aim not to be precisely right but merely plausible and approximately
right. This position is preferable to stumbling blindly ahead, or tenaciously clinging to the
present until it unexpectedly becomes a future for which we are ill-prepared. The process
of generating alternate futures, while necessarily a creative process, is rigorous and
methodical. Just as we know the past by inference, we gain insight into futures by the
same process of inferential reasoning. We also know that competitive, for-profit
businesses generate alternate futures at considerable expense and can show that
profitability increases when planning looks far ahead. A business that fails to look ahead
may miss a new market or lose market share. Armed forces that fail to look ahead can
lose the nation.
We look ahead to avoid being surprised, and there are other methods of looking
ahead besides alternative futures.4 Methodologies may vary, and some are better than
others, but all have a common objective: to provide insights into tomorrow so that present
behavior can prepare us to cope with future demands.5 Thus, the task is to look ahead,
describe the operating environment, describe the coping skills this environment may
demand, and then postulate a range of actions in the present likely to produce the desired
results in the future.6
3
Unions and Intersections
We are beginning to learn some things common to all futures: simply put, the
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines of 2020 or 2025 must become as “brilliant” as the
tools they might have at their disposal. For example, the Marines’ Sea Dragon and the
Army’s mobile digitized Force XXI¾or whatever those become en route to the far
future¾cannot be understood or prosecuted by any but thoroughly trained and
exquisitely educated forces. Add to this the growing possibility that engagement in
nontraditional military missions is likely to increase, and that the armed forces are not
likely to increase in size, then one begins to see that the education and training challenges
are immense. A few examples illuminate the challenge.
What should planners study to enable them to envision a strike with precision-guided
munitions against 5,000 targets simultaneously to produce the desired strategic
effects? What kind of education is required to prepare a future combatant to go directly
from an embarkation point in the continental United States (CONUS) to link up with a
friendly coalition force to fight a common adversary in less than 12 hours after leaving
home? How, for example, does one “train” a Marine for firefighting in California one
week and, the next month, expect him or her to survive a firefight of the more hostile
kind in combat with a uniformed enemy?
Recognizing the magnitude of these kinds of challenges¾and continuing the quest
to keep PME vital begun by Rep Ike Skelton¾the DOD’s Office of Net Assessment has

7. sponsored workshops and conferences focusing on the military training and PME
challenges posed by the future and by the RMA. In the conference reports, summary
essays, and commentaries, similar themes begin to emerge. Whatever the actual future,
there are useful unions and intersections in the environment of all futures. Armed with
this awareness, we can chart or propose the waypoints leading to the future.
The Environment
An examination of future studies indicates that the operating environment of the
far future probably will have at least these five attributes important to those planning
today’s professional military education and training.7
First, humans will still fight, and fighting could occur from anywhere on
the planet’s surface up to and including cislunar space. Much will change
between now and the far future , but it is foolhardy to expect human nature to
change in one generation to the degree that there is no likelihood of organized
conflict. Someone will always want the other guy’s “stuff.” The fights, when
they occur, could occur in environments ranging from jungle to polar ice to city to
the orbital heights. The fights could be with national armies, criminals, or
irregulars. The state will not wither away, even though it may have more
powerful competitors than what we have today.
Second, the US armed forces will have become smaller; capability will be
more tightly integrated; and speed, precision, and the ability to operate
effectively in ambiguous circumstances will become the treasured operational
values. “Cost” will be as important a criterion as capability in organizing, training,
and equipping this future force.8 A cadre of nearly transcendent
professionals¾but not six-million dollar men or robocops¾will constitute the
force. The services probably will not merge into one service, nor are we likely to
create a space corps or an information corps. We will still need a means to
develop experts in land warfare, naval warfare, and air and space
warfare¾including the information operations that cross-cut all those combat
media. This force will work side-by-side with many contracted and interagency
personnel. All members of this force of the future must understand their
individual contributions to the whole and how the contributors are integrated to
meet the objective. Knowing how to make “my part” of the force work right
won’t be good enough; I must know how “your part” works, too.
The gold standard for this force will be its ability to make rapid precision
strikes, both physical and electronic-photonic, and operate effectively in situations
that may have high ambiguity. Precision and engagement speed (strikes and
restrikes) will compensate for smaller forces. Events will unfold so rapidly that
time and timing become critical. The ability to act over great distances, to achieve
desired strategic effects rapidly with a minimum amount of damage (including
4

8. damage to the ecosystem) or casualties, and to withdraw or terminate quickly may
well deter many potential adversaries.
Third, there will be swarms of interactive smart machines. Builder called
the information technology explosion “the key disturber” of our time.9 “Brilliant”
systems¾with many of them being quite small¾are the inevitable consequence
of the explosion in computing power and information technologies. A lecturer at
Air University suggested that there could be microchips in just about everything
before the middle of the next century. These little microchips would make
“dumb” things smarter. When the microchips communicate with a central
processing unit, they will constitute a “smart” network. When smart networks
communicate, almost brain-like systems will emerge. Today, retired Adm William
Owens and others describe this phenomenon as the coming “system of systems.”
In 30 years so much “intelligence” will have been embedded in everything, with
so many of these things interacting with humans, that we are more likely to
describe the armed forces of the future as an “organism of organisms.”
Fourth, coalitions will be the norm. Technology and a common dedication
to improving human quality of life will combine effectively to shrink the planet
and lead to a greater harmonization of interests, without a loss of cultural or
national identity. The electronic internetting of economies, the tremendous
increase in routine leisure and business travel, and the ease of person-to-person
contacts will facilitate greater cooperation. Threats to the interests of one of our
global partners will imperil us and other global partners more than they do today,
and we will act in concert with our partners. Military-to-military exchanges,
coalition training exercises, and actual operations will link the allied warriors of
the planet and promote a kindred spirit among them. We must and will preserve
the ability to act unilaterally, but¾like it or not¾coalition operations will be the
norm.
Fifth, tomorrow’s subordinates and leaders will be different from today’s.
While this conclusion may have the ring of the authentically unremarkable to it,
we tend to forget that people in the distant future will not be exactly the same as
1995 people propelled unchanged into the future. The same genetic material will
be influenced by a vastly different environment. Some analysts observe that often
ignored social changes may be the driving force of all change, including changes
in technology. Thus, we need to remain aware that the “led” of the far future will
be conditioned by events and forces en route to the future that we cannot foresee
today. By the first part of the next century, they may appear as different from our
perspective as the leaders and led of 1965 seem when we recall them today.
While you and I may appreciate other music, tomorrow’s leaders seem to prefer
MTV, Hootie and the Blowfish, and Snoop Doggie Dogg. We can only imagine
what their subordinates will favor.
Our leaders will change, too. By 2025 we will have had nearly half a century of
jointness in the US armed forces and the speed bumps of today will have been flattened.
5

9. The demographic composition of the Congress also will be different. Today, fewer than
40 percent of the Congress have served in the armed forces. Thirty years from now the
percentage may be much smaller. An important element of continuity is that our armed
forces will remain respectful of the president, beholden to the law, including all the laws
made by different Congresses between now and the far future, and will remain under tight
civilian control.
The Output
Given the five likely attributes of the future environment, to complete our model
we must next examine the desired output as a prelude to describing the input and the
military education and training contribution. To cope and succeed in a world with the
attributes postulated, what kinds of skills and behaviors are required? In the most
compressed terms possible, and given the attributes of the future environment, education
must help military professionals at least acquire this kind of knowledge, learn these skills,
and have these behaviors:
1. A constantly improving understanding of human motivation and the
interpersonal skills necessary to achieve cooperation to attain the desired objective or
achieve the desired effect. In other words, the essence of leadership may be the ability to
act with an understanding of what makes people tick. Harry S. Truman defined
leadership as “making people do what they don’t want to do and like it.” Understanding
why humans of different backgrounds and cultures (or services) behave the way they do
in different circumstances is integral to understanding the sources and nature of human
cooperation, friction, and conflict. To prepare military professionals for success in the far
future, they must learn more about leadership and human behavior¾their own, their
subordinates’, and their adversaries’.
2. A strong commitment to right conduct that almost invariably results in right
behavior. Note the qualifier “almost.” Because human nature will not change much, and
because freedom to choose is important, there will be misconduct and mistakes in spite of
our best efforts to prevent them. In 30 years our democracy will be more mature and will
have evolved, but it will be based, as it always has been, on our passion for the goodness
of individual liberty and our belief that people ought to be respectful of the law. As
public servants in a society that cherishes its free press, we will be scrutinized more
closely than they are today. A military that loses public support may be in more trouble
than one which loses a battle. Education can provide the confident assurance of virtue,
right conduct, and the fidelity to core values. Professional military education must impart
the values that build character.
3. The eagerness to discover new tools, the ability to think creatively of new uses
for existing tools, the initiative to innovate, and the ability to know and willingness to
take acceptable risks. The tools and machines available for everything, including
fighting, could be as numerous in the far future as they are marvelous.10 Gazing back to
6

10. 1965 and comparing the technologies available then to those available today, space
systems (except for spacelift), stealth, and sensor improvements stand out initially as
military innovations. The powerful information technologies and the advances in
biochemistry and medicine were developed by the private sector. Even so, the armed
forces of 1996-2025 must have the knowledge and the incentives to identify and select
those emerging developments that can enable dominant military capability: the basic
sciences of chemistry and physics; discoveries and innovations in pharmaceuticals,
electronics, air and space industry; and information technology. All of us need to know
more about space and space operations because our quality of life and success in battle
will depend increasingly on them.
Certainly, the areas of technical competence that training must provide are more
numerous, but education aims at big constructs acquired in more complicated ways.
Knowing the environment and the desired output, what then is the input?
The Input
The president of the United States in 2025 probably is in high school today. The
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the chiefs of staff of America’s services of the
far future are cadets, midshipmen, lieutenants, or captains today. The environment and
experiences that will have formed them will be significantly different from the
experiences that formed today’s warriors. Thus, we begin with a different input:
somewhat different people with a somewhat different orientation.
7
The Thirteenth Generation
The differences in this generation are significant.11 The present generation is the
first generation to have grown up with television and matured with computers, video
games, and portable communications devices. Most are “wired,” and “the net” is just
another “really cool” place. They are fitter and healthier than we are, and their offspring
likely will be even healthier. They are destined to live longer. They “recycle” because
it’s obvious to them¾“like get a clue, dad”¾that humans ought to care for the planet
and the environment. They have experienced more (and earlier) than past generations.
They want “more” and are willing to take risks to get more. They are enthusiastic and
impatient. They demand stimulation, excitement, and speed in their lives. Many are in
family situations with a single parent, multiple step-parents, or absentee parents. They
are loyal fans of people and teams and brand names. They expect and demand diversity.
They are choosy, and some are private and protective of their “stuff” and their “space.”
Most are good people, even considering that some are good people in bad circumstances.
They will come to us because we offer them challenges and responsibilities they cannot
get elsewhere.12 Thus, the question becomes, “What must we do in PME today and
tomorrow to educate folks like these¾the military leaders of the next century?”

11. One answer is to ignore their differences and assert that we will force them into
the cookie-cutter of our traditional professional military education system; an
environment, John Warden once remarked, “Socrates would be comfortable in.” But
remember, they will come to our hallowed halls already trained and will expect no less
challenge in education than they experienced in training and, for that matter, “at home.”
The traditional approach is not likely to work. Rather, PME must come at the right times,
offer them the right set of experiences, help them to navigate to the right information in
the sea of available information, encourage them to use the nearly risk-free laboratory of
the PME university to experiment and innovate, use technology to place them in unusual
circumstances and environments, and guide them to make connections and arrive at
conclusions they can test for themselves. If we can envision alternate futures, we can use
technology to create them as virtual realities. If they cannot get all the genuine
experiences we believe they will need to survive and succeed, we must strive to give
them many near-genuine ones. If we can use technology to help them learn to operate in
the virtual reality of these alternate futures, we help to prepare them to cope with the
demands of whatever “the” future will offer. The role of the professional military
educator in the future is more important, not less important. Those of us responsible for
PME must, in short, prepare each of our charges to be a “Brilliant Warrior.”
Brilliant does not mean “an IQ of over 140” or “SAT scores of at least 1,500.” It
means that we have taken people already committed to the warrior profession and must
train and educated them in such a way that by 2025, as compared to today, they will be
brilliant¾smart, adept, agile, savvy¾professional warriors. Take away the gizmos of
Robert Heinlein’s Starship Trooper and use that image to envision the best in tomorrow’s
warriors. They should have all the attitudes and behaviors that allow them to survive,
succeed, and lead others in whatever future we find ourselves. They must be lifelong
learners, thinkers, and prudent risk-takers. Our gift to them is a PME system that forces
them to think, encourages them to learn how to learn, and gives them the confidence that
they will know what to do in new operating environments because we’ve given them the
opportunity to experience these alternate environments. Their gift to us, in return, is that
we can have high confidence that they know how to behave and will not let us down.
They are, or will be, the champions of the warrior profession, the guardians of
democracy, and the protectors of our future.
Recall I asserted that there will be fewer warriors in the future and that cost will
rival capability as a criterion for organizing, training, and equipping the force. As
alternative approaches to PME are evaluated, the two suggested criteria are (1)
effectiveness: the desired knowledge is acquired and the right behavior results; and (2)
cost: the highest value and best return on investment results.13 Both criteria must be
applied with an awareness of the changes that will occur naturally between now and the
far future.14 The debate has begun; it is now time to enliven it.
8

12. Forming Brilliant Warriors
The alternatives that might meet the specified knowledge and behavioral
objectives are many. Choosing from among the alternatives will define specific
characteristics of a PME system that must also choose its general characteristics. The
process of choosing is itself difficult: today there are public laws to satisfy; the Joint Staff
is involved; and the services, training commands, and using commands are all participants
in the process. Tomorrow, future strategy reviews, force restructure, roles and missions
commissions, and new public laws also can be expected to affect choices.
General Characteristics of a Future PME System
As the services become more integrated over time and the size of the defense
establishment shrinks, efforts will be made to reduce infrastructure costs and investment.
Today, each of the services has both a command and staff college and a war college.
Tomorrow, the services may be represented by robust “departments” on one campus¾a
move the British are making. Another alternative, of course, would be to combine what
are today intermediate- and senior-level schools into one school for each of the services,
and transform the National Defense University into general and flag officer PME.15
Today, a warrior is likely to attend resident PME both at the intermediate level and at the
senior level, devoting 20 or more months to in-residence education. Tomorrow, resident
PME might be for periods of much shorter duration. Today, selection for resident PME is
made by the service. Tomorrow, joint selection boards may identify officers to attend
resident PME.
Today, PME is technology-poor. Tomorrow, and if the private sector is
encouraged, resident PME could have powerful technologies. These technologies would
allow creation of different virtual realities and use resident PME as the crucible for
learning experiences that may not be duplicated in or provided to the field.16 For
example, we may wish the warrior to experience operating in a known environment, such
as Somalia or Bosnia. But we may also want to provide the warrior “the experience” of
adapting to a less certain or future environment.
Today, PME is discontinuous and episodic. Tomorrow, resident and nonresident
education may see warriors continuously educating themselves in a deliberate lifelong
learning system. Today, civilians on the faculty of PME institutions may have “tenure.”
Tomorrow, they may be contract employees, visiting scholars from civilian institutions,
and former warriors who have “been there and done that . . . well.”17 Today, much of the
core of most PME curricula is built around a study of Clausewitz or Mahan and the great
campaigns of history. Tomorrow may see curricula built around providing stressful
experiences in virtually real leadership situations and in employing joint doctrine and
combined arms in coalition war games, along with ethics education, and regional studies.
Envisioning, creating, and teaching such a curriculum requires educators of impressive
competence.
9

13. All of these¾and more¾choices and challenges, and the debates that will most
assuredly attend them, await us. And “us” is all of us: the Congress, special panels and
commissions, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the commanders in
chief, the services, training and education commands, and the troops. My guess is that
those of us responsible for providing PME will remember the tongue-in-cheek challenge
of General Rokke’s Rule Number 5: “As academies, we will advise others to change, but
will likely ensure that revolutionary change takes place most slowly within our own
organization.”18 This will not do. If we do not adapt, innovate, and lead-turn the need,
then we are without merit and not fit to lead, let alone educate.
Specific Characteristics of a Future PME System
Even as the choices that determine the general characteristics of a system
intending to produce Brilliant Warriors are being made, more specific choices must be
made also. The specific elements chosen must, like the general ones, meet some criteria.
I proposed effectiveness and cost. The aim is to bring the powerful learning experiences
of life, leadership, and warfare into PME. It is experience that may remain the best
teacher. As Lao Tze argued centuries ago, “If you tell me, I’ll listen. If you show me, I’ll
see. If I experience it, I’ll learn.” 19
The function of PME is to produce effective warriors who behave properly. The
form that PME takes is determined by its function, by the environment, and by the
characteristics of the people to be educated. Given the behavioral objectives postulated,
and recognizing that the specific characteristics of a future PME system will be affected
by the choices influencing the general shape of PME, what are the alternatives? I frame
these alternatives as questions, and the questions are not intended to be either mutually
exclusive or exhaustive. The conclusions reached¾my answers¾are hypotheses for
testing and debate. They include the following:
· A constantly improving understanding of human motivation and the
interpersonal skills necessary to achieve cooperation to attain the desired objective
or achieve the desired effect.
¾More psychology, anthropology, or social science?
¾Interactive learning with artificial intelligence as a tutor or more classroom
teachers?
¾Virtual reality systems that allow the student to live in future environments?
¾More role-playing, case studies, biography?
¾Increased international officer and civilian enrollment?
¾More theoretical models to study and evaluate?
¾More “virtual” travel or military-to-military exchanges?
¾Studies of mathematics and chaos theory?
¾Multidisciplinary teaching teams?
10

14. 11
¾More history or less?
Brilliant Warrior, as I envision it, requires that distance learning keep the force in
continuous PME.20 Yet, even distance learning will be tiered: all learners receive a
customized curriculum, and the more eager students receive a more challenging
curriculum than the others. While some warriors are nonetheless in PME, they may
remain at the “maintenance” level their entire career. Only the top percentage of a year
group--those who have demonstrated the potential for future command--will attend
resident PME. The foregone conclusions should not be that resident PME be nearly one
year long, nor that it must occur at traditional sites. This resident PME of the future
could be a series of shorter resident-learning opportunities. These learning opportunities
aim to provide those experiences that distance learning cannot provide. Chief among
these is experiencing living and performing in the stressful circumstances of alternate
futures. Thus, resident PME must begin to provide a more experiential curriculum that
bears on the problems of conflict, human relations, and military leadership. Knowledge is
about making connections and choices, so the approach taken is necessarily multi-disciplinary.
Likewise, the course must be multicultural. The participation of
international officers and civilians must increase. One series of in-resident learning
opportunities might focus air officers on experiencing joint and coalition air and space
operations in an alternate future environment. A different series tailored for naval
officers would allow them to experience future operations in their operational medium.
These PME resident learning opportunities might come several times a year between the
10- and 15-year points¾some of them intentionally on short notice¾and prepare the
warriors for initial large command and senior staff responsibilities. Those exceptionally
well qualified, as indicated by selection for general or flag rank, would go on to the
National Defense University of the future at just past the 20-year point. These concerns
are listed below:
· A strong commitment to right conduct that almost invariably results in
right behavior.
¾More ethics education or less?
¾Deeper study into the American system of government?
¾A curriculum that requires making difficult personal resource allocation
choices?
¾Placing students in alternate future environments with high ambiguity and
uncertainty?
¾More health and fitness activities or less?
¾More seminars or fewer seminars or no seminars?
¾More or less reading and writing?
¾More personal mentoring or less?
Professor Dick Kohn of the University of North Carolina and others express
concerns about civil-military relations that demand attention.21 For America to maintain
its leadership position, it must have leaders who understand the American ideal, the way

15. in which the government and its decision-making processes work, and the Constitution.
These leaders must also be educated in the service’s core values and in ethics. It is on
these pillars that distance learning in the five- to ten-year time frame ought to be built,
since civilian educational institutions may not emphasize them to the degree required for
professional warriors. In all cases, resident education needs to broaden awareness of the
challenges that may be encountered in the future, and technology could allow the
warriors to experience them by performing in virtually real futuristic environments.
These concerns include the following:
· The eagerness to discover new tools, the ability to think creatively of new
uses for existing tools, the initiative to innovate, and the ability to know and
willingness to take acceptable risks.
¾A wargame-centered curriculum?
¾A research-centered curriculum?
¾A book-centered curriculum?
¾More studies on the relationships between technology and war or less?
¾Formal education and experience in creative thinking?
¾Formal education in logic, rhetoric, and critical thinking?
¾A mandated curriculum or a self-selected curriculum?
¾Opportunities to experiment with and fight different force structures?
¾Formal education in operations research and operations analysis?
¾More emphasis on the sources of conflict and change or less?
Brilliant Warriors must be critical thinkers. Professor I. B. Holley of Duke
University identifies the lack of education in critical thinking as a serious shortfall in
today’s PME curricula. Critical thinking skills are enhanced by a curriculum that
emphasizes research. The French currently use a research-centered model in their joint
senior PME today. Research into the past may be less germane to the Brilliant Warrior
than disciplined and creative thinking about the future, but the value of studying the past
is that it warns us about repeating mistakes in the future. More and better wargames
(including analytical wargames) need to bolster the resident curriculum to improve critical
and creative thinking. Studies of joint forces and capabilities¾of the “here’s how Joint
Operation Planning and Execution System works” or “a battalion looks like this” or “an
F-15E does that” variety¾which are not “educational,” do not require critical thinking,
and today clutter the curricula of even senior PME, would fill the 10-to-15-year interval
of continuous distance learning. Readings and interactive discussions in strategy and
history, using advanced distance learning, would provide the basic discernment necessary
to be a warrior leading warriors. Performance in distance learning courses should be a
factor in selection for resident PME.
The illustration below summarizes features of the Brilliant Warrior model.
12

16. COSTS ALTERNATIIVES
ENVIIRONMENT
Complex and Time-Urgent
Some conflict remains likely
Expansive operational space
IINPUTS OUTPUTS
H Already trained and
committed warriors
H In continuous PME from
accession
PME
H Strategy Reviews, Roles
and Missions Commissions,
OSD, Joint Staff, Services
H Today’s cadets
midshipmen, and younger
folk
13
H Able to motivate, survive
and succeed in future
environments
H An ethical and
responsible critical thinker
and leader
H Creative, innovative, and
initiative-oriented
H Expert in joint,
combined, and coalition
operations
Smaller armed forces
Speed, precision, and ambiguity
Swarms of intelligent machines
Coalition operations the norm
EFFECTIVENESS OPPORTUNITIES
Figure 1. The Brilliant Warrior Model
Choosing Wisely
Military training and PME are critical components of the national security
strategy. Military training and PME thus intersect the interests of three of our most
conservative institutions: the military, education, and the government. These institutions
are not as averse to change as they are slow to change and quick to resist unnecessary
change. We have brilliant educators to help meet the goal of producing Brilliant Warriors
for the future, but what we lack is vision¾where we want PME to go and what we want
PME to be. PME classrooms may be wired and students may be issued laptops,
but¾without vision¾these may be little more than unavoidable, unimaginative, and
interesting improvements.
There is no time like the present to begin thinking and debating the changes
necessary to keep PME relevant and valuable. The future, whatever it proves to be, will
be our measure. Unless we act in the present, thinking about the future becomes so much
intellectual arm-waving. We cannot expect to have Brilliant Warriors to face the future
unless we begin preparing today. This essay suggested some ways, but these are not the

17. only ways and they are not all the ways.22 We are not free to dodge the obligation to
choose: PME will change. That being so, we should choose wisely.
Notes
1 The views expressed are ideas. They are not necessarily the officially held views of the Air Force, the Air
Education and Training Command, or Air University.
2 A definition of training provided by I. B. Holley is “to develop proficiency by instruction and practice or
drill; training equips one to do repetitive tasks skillfully.” He defines professional military education as a
way “to cultivate the mind to make sound decisions in unique situations; education equips one to cope with
uncertainty and confusion.” I. B. Holley to Lt Gen Jay W. Kelley, 6 Febuary 1996.
3 Carl Builder, "Guns or Butter: The Twilight of a Tradeoff?" (May 1994), a presentation to the USAF Air
University National Security Forum, Maxwell AFB, Ala. Used with permission.
4 The National Intelligence Estimates combine linear trends and extrapolations with human judgment. The
“footnotes” of formal disagreement provide alternatives for consideration. Some analysts look at future
“trends” to predict when specific changes will occur and their probability of occurrence. Alvin and Heidi
Toffler shun trends in favor of making judgments about the “second order effects” of changes that combine.
WIRED magazine published an entire “scenario” issue dedicated to alternate futures. Scientific American
dedicated its 150th Anniversary issue to an exploration of key technologies in the twenty-first century. Most
recently, the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board published an insightful glimpse into the future in New
World Vistas. And there are useful books¾by Adm William Owens, Paul Kennedy, Peter Schwartz, and
John Peterson¾that aim to illuminate the world of tomorrow.
5 The best way to anticipate the future may be to work to shape it. By generating alternate futures the
organization is better prepared to avoid less desirable ones and pursue a better one.
6 Richard C. Chilcoat, “The ‘Fourth’ Army War College: Preparing Strategic Leaders for the Next Century,”
Parameters (Winter 1995-96), 3-17. While there is plenty of information available for strategic planners,
much of it needs further analysis and reflection before it can inform decision making in specific areas. Our
concern here is military education and training. Maj Gen Dick Chilcoat’s essay does this by using the
operating environment of the future and the future Army described in Force XXI to closely link the Army’s
premier professional military education school and its curriculum to tomorrow’s demands.
7 These are what I derive from analysis and synthesis, and limited space does not allow me to engage in
limitless justification of this list. Others add other technical and operational attributes: coherent and
simultaneous operations, asymmetry, the presence of cruise missiles or weapons of mass destruction,
information dominance, and others. Rather than categorize the attributes so narrowly, I have described them
in broader terms.
8 Dr Gene McCall, et.al., New World Vistas: Air and Space Power for the 21st Century (Summary Volume),
December 1995, 4-5.
9 Builder.
10 If the tools are “numerous,” the objects themselves could be small because of advances in nano-technology
and micro-electromechanical machines. I don’t envision an armed force larger than today’s force.
11 Col Donald R. Selvage, United States Marine Corps (USMC), “Recruiting the Corps of the 21st Century,”
an address presented to the USMC Reserve Officers Association, Chicago, Ill., 16 September 1995. See
also Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management, “1994 Youth Attitude Tracking
Study.”
12 The latest USMC recruiting advertisement video offers potential recruits dangerous tests, trials by fire, the
chance to combat evil in the form of video-game-like, computer-generated image of an enemy. If the
candidate passes these tests, he or she is offered the reward of permanent transformation. It is an approach
specifically designed to appeal to the target market and my guess is that it will work.
13 The precise delineation of cost, value, and return on investment as metrics remains difficult. Because of
the difficulty, PME largely has evaded the “green eyeshade” folk. The ultimate metric is victory in our
nation’s wars. Thus, we cannot hold up the pre-WWII German Kriegsakademie as a model on the one hand
and use the metric of victory on the other. Future cost computations might include such variables as the cost
of time away from primary duties, relocation and travel costs, and the overall costs of the PME system
14

18. (infrastructure, personnel, recurring expenses). Value can be calculated by determining performance at
different costs. Return on investment might be the amount of time served in primary duties compared to the
amount of time in resident PME.
14 For example, for us to specify that “PME needs more information technology” is not particularly insightful.
PME cannot avoid acquiring more information technology because one cannot forecast an environment
where improvements in information technology do not occur naturally. The real issue is to specify the
information technologies for education that keep pace with need and with the information technologies used
in training.
15 This alternative would send “operators” to the National War College and “acquisition executives” to the
Industrial College of the Armed Forces as an alternative to what is today Capstone.
16 Nicholas Negroponte, Being Digital (New York: Vintage Books, 1995), 116-28.
17 Consider that two forces at work are (1) further reductions in the size of the armed forces and (2) increased
life expectancies for Americans. Given those two factors, one can easily imagine a large pool of retired and
highly qualified commissioned and noncommissioned officers¾already receiving some level of retirement
income¾willing to offer their services as PME faculty members at competitive costs.
18 Conference Report: Professional Military Education and the Emerging Revolution in Military Affairs
(SAIC Document Number 95-6956), 22-23 May 1995. Rokke’s Rules: (1) Projecting the future nature of war
is more akin to a floating craps game than an exact science; (2) future PME will need to participate in student
learning from dust to dust; (3) the major drivers of RMA currently are outside the military; (4) the path to
RMA may run through some, all, or none of our respective institutions; (5) as academies, we will advise
others to change, but will likely ensure that revolutionary change takes place most slowly within our own
organization; (6) Yamamoto and Rommel did as much for the aircraft carrier and combined arms warfare in
American military as 20 years of effort at Newport and Leavenworth; (7) to a greater extent than in the past,
the RMA train is fueled by engineers and basic scientists ... as apart from social scientists and humanities
folks; (8) the information component of the RMA is inherently joint, interdepartmental, and transnational; (9)
ultimately, NDU’s role in RMA ... relative to service counterparts ... will be proportional to the extent that
planes, ships, and tanks are marginalized; (10) PME jointness, like good Aquivit, is best in moderation and
when accompanied by Army, Navy, Marine and Air Force ‘chasers.’ Used with General Rokke’s permission.
19 Cited in SPACECAST 2020, “Professional Military Education (PME) in 2020,” L-26.
20 The Air Force chief of staff recently mandated a forcewide “mentoring” program. The result will be that
the existing gaps in educational experiences will be filled, and every officer in the Air Force will be in
continuous education.
21 Richard H. Kohn, "Out of Control: The Crisis in Civil-Military Relations," The National Interest (Spring
1994), 3-17.
22 Additional motivation ought to come from awareness that the United States is not the only nation aiming to
improve its professional military educational technology. See Wang Jianghuai, “Warfare Simulation:
Research and Application in High-Tech Warfare,” 1 December 1995, in Foreign Broadcast Information
Service-CHI-96-018, 26 January 1996, 20-21.
15